Fwiw Teenage Engineering is a design firm who was originally contracted by Rabbit to design the physical device. I don't think they had anything to do with the functionality.
While Rabbit Inc is a separate entity, they are more deeply intertwined than a mere design contract. Rabbit's CEO, Jesse Lyu, is on TE's board of directors. TE's CEO, Jesper Kouthoofd, is employed by Rabbit as "Chief Design Officer".
That’s a good point, I guess they didn’t have any hand in the software…just seems icky to me.
I trusted the product mainly because of their name, it’s hard for me to understand how they didn’t see what the underlying product was when they attached their name to it.
Teenage Engineering use a type of design that is intended to obfuscate the functionality of the device. For example, their Pocket Operator series use LCD displays which have very little utility to the experience of music-making. The OP1 has an OLED display which mostly displays non-sequitur nonsense.
Those of us who despise Teenage Engineering are reacting to a design ethos which devalues the users knowledge and understanding of what they are doing, over whimsical non-sequitur. You're not getting a musical instrument - you're getting a device, which despite itself, can nevertheless be used to make some kind of music.
That's the beauty of music, not the device. You can make music with anything.
So the feeling among those of us who also make musical instruments is that Teenage Engineering are packaging up an inherent feature of music and selling it to people in a fancy way - they don't really care about the music-making features, which are almost secondary to their effort to design aesthetically appealing, moderately functional, expensive toys.
And in that light, it makes complete sense that they would involve themselves in the Rabbit R1. The impression is that Teenage Engineering kind of despise their customers, who they think are dumb, and they therefore invest in non-sequitur aesthetics in lieu of smart design that pushes the industry forward. Teenage Engineering ship exploitation and ridicule - they don't make finely crafted instruments for musicians to hone their skills. Most great musicians who play with an OP1 and make music with it, do so despite the devices' many roadblocks to creativity.
This is super cool! Do you have any plans to support on-demand image building like the now defunct https://ctr.run? It seems like with your speed it's kind of a perfect match.
Thank you for the very kind comments! It would be really cool to do something like ctr with what we have with Depot today. Did you have a part you really enjoyed with it that would be a must have for you?
The problem appears less when creating new tables, creating tables is relatively safe. But let's say in your one table per db you keep track of a few things (columns). For example you have a column for the name of the sheet and another column for the time it was created and some other miscellaneous columns. Later on once you have a hundred users or so you get a persistent feature request: keep track of the time it was last updated. You write up a simple migration, it looks something like
ALTER TABLE your_table ADD updated_at TEXT;
This is also relatively harmless, but now you have to figure out how to run this migration across your 100 databases, and deal with the case where maybe some fail, what do you do then? Rollback everywhere? But what if some users have already have rows that use the new column? Do you delete their data? Etc. Now consider a more complicated migration, maybe it renames a column, drops a column, adds a default value, drops an index, etc. You can see where problems might come from.
That said I do really like your idea, I've gotten into sqlite a lot lately (I work on the database team at Fly.io), I'm just responding to you questions specifically about migrations.
Thanks for the detailed answer. I was thinking of a more hands-of approach in terms of what I do vs what the user does. So in terms of this feature request, it would actually be implemented client side. That is, I would update the client to ask the user if they want this new feature, then use IF EXISTS to see if the table already exists, and if it does, tell the user to fix it themselves. Or could we keep all the metadata in a seperate table and JOIN it on the ID? In any event, I'm literally just a reliable file server and a UI in this equation (plus backups).
For context, this would really be aimed at developers and admins to manage data for their clients or co-workers. Stuff that currently is an excel sheet, but needs to leave excel world to do some mundane task, such as filling a pdf and uplading it somewhere. You could do this is word mailmerge + excel, but now you (the admin) are in charge of performing this mundane task every week. And belive me this kind of thing is very common. In fact, the one special thing I may do is somehow write the data into an excel file and somehow allow them to sync to each other (not the logic part from either side though).
Not even sure if I would try to sell or just make it for free. It wouldn't be something streamlined like airtable, although if it got interest maybe I would take your approach.
If you like my idea btw, feel free to use it! I have nothing but respect for fly.io, I used it breifly for a side project and it was realy simple to set up. You saying you like my idea actually gives me confidence in trying it out, thank you!
Hah I've got my own backlog of side projects, don't tempt me I'm like a year behind on it :). If you ever get around to building it or something like it I'd love to hear about it. You should check out tools like https://github.com/nocodb/nocodb which expose a spreadsheet like interface on top of a database.
Thanks! Is there any documentation on the stable API? The link I posted has some normal REST stuff for machines, but nothing on other resources. I can't find any central API reference/etc in your docs.
Looking at the code, it uses GraphQL? I can't find any documentation on your GraphQL API either though, aside from a web editor that doesn't appear to be linked anywhere official.
As fly apps v2 becomes more stable the docs will continue to improve. Watch this space :). As for the graphql, it's a bit of a thorny situation. The graphql exists primarily to service our needs internally and as such has no guaranteed contract. Unfortunately, however, for some things that's the only API that exists. The autogenerated docs in the playground are pretty good actually though. That said, we are working on improving our rest api so more things will be available there.
Alright, I don't imagine this will be a common take here but here goes. I am a product of the New York City public school system. I have spent the majority of my life as a student in it. The New York city public school system is both the largest public school system in the country and the most segregated. The argument about removing gifted programs are built on the faulty assumptions that the students in those programs are "more gifted" than everyone else and that the work is truly more advanced. Neither of those are the case.
Gifted programs are used to advance and maintain the status-quo of segregation in our schools. The correlation between medium household (of which Black americans are at a disadvantage) and acceptance into the gifted program is much stronger than the correlation between merit and acceptance. I've spent my life in this system and I can tell you with one hundred percent confidence that the reason many if not most of my black peers don't get into these programs is not due to any lack of merit or intelligence.
Now lets look at the second assumption, that the gifted programs provide a higher level of education. This is not true. What happens is that gifted programs get significantly higher funding than other schools and so the gifted programs can afford to give a good well rounded education, which is a good thing! The problem is that so many of our schools, especially in Brown and Black neighborhoods) are completely underfunded, without enough teachers or resources. This of course perpetuates the systemic inequities that begun this cycle in the first place thus repeating the whole cycle.
When we are calling for an end to "gifted" programs in New York, it is not because we "hate smart kids" but because we want resources to be evenly divided so that everyone can get a well funded well rounded education, not just the rich kids in gifted classes. This is not a single issue but is a larger component of an attempt to dismantle segregation in public schools. It drives me crazy to no end to see smart people fall into the ideological trap of believing gifted programs are something they aren't.
> When we are calling for an end to "gifted" programs in New York, it is not because we "hate smart kids" but because we want resources to be evenly divided so that everyone can get a well funded well rounded education, not just the rich kids in gifted classes. This is not a single issue but is a larger component of an attempt to dismantle segregation in public schools.
Ok, then that's what you should ask for. Ask for a more even distribution of resources.
If you single out the elimination of a specific program as a proxy for what you really want, you shouldn't be surprised when the discourse fixates on your targeting that program -- especially when it's a program for gifted students. By doing that you've made it very easy for your opponents to portray you as someone who would rather bring all students down to the same level than allow differences in ability to be cultivated.
> If you single out the elimination of a specific program as a proxy for what you really want,
The problem is that in New York at least the gifted programs are the direct mechanism by which rich parents uphold the status quo of segregation. The gifted prgrams are not a proxy, they are a symptom. As I said elsewhere in this thread: we are looking for a fair allocation of resources to actually give schools the ability to meet every student where they are and to engage them wherever that is.
The fact that gifted programs would be needed at all is a failure of our public school system. Every school should have the resources to adequately engage and educate every student regardless of their academic starting point.
Aren't poorer Chinese students the ones that dominate various gifted programs throughout the city? Rich parents send their kids to private daycares and schools like Collegiate.
More funding doesn't solve the problem. If that were case, the whole country could have spent it's way out of special education. At an median of $24K per student, New York has plenty of funding. Kansas city once tried an unlimited funding model to disastrous results (https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-most-costly-educati...).
Yes, but apparently that's "segregation". The notion is ridiculous. The gifted programs are open to any New Yorker, even poor first generation immigrants like the Chinese in Flushing, as long as they put in the effort to meeting or exceed the standards.
This is actually a great example of the flaw in the debate. NYC has a unique and byzantine school system that's unrecognizable to basically all Americans outside of NYC.
This means if you hear "eliminate this program because equity," and you grew up in the midwest where the gifted program didn't function at all like you describe or require much funding at all, this sounds completely nonsensical because we're not talking about the same thing.
I don't have an answer to this except that it's best discussed on a local case by case basis.
I was not in the gifted program but most of my friends and younger siblings were. I agree with this assessment. They had access to after school programs and opportunities that were not offered to the rest of us. Their classes gave a higher GPA for the same results in regular classes despite (in some cases) teaching basically the same thing as regular classes, from the same book. Regular classes were the same workload but less creativity, enthusiasm, and support.
I later found out that test scores didn't entirely determine placement. Many of my peers were put in the gifted program after a parent advocated for them.
So yes, I appreciate these efforts to equalize opportunity. I'd like that the lessons offered in gifted programs can be offered to all students
This is where I think things are kind to vary wildly between different regions and districts so we have to be specific make sure we are comparing apples to apples. A gift program like you describe “by name only” isn’t a gifted program at all, that doesn’t mean “real” ones don’t exist. It’s like saying the funding for baseballs is not producing any baseball players meanwhile they only use the baseballs for playing tennis.
Sure but the issues faced here in New York are not unique, just particularly visible due to the size. The systemically racist systems exist everywhere and I would be willing to bet money that in the majority of districts and regions where gifted programs exist will have absurdly low percentages of brown and black students. And again, that is not because brown and black students aren't as smart. The systems of this country deals them a bad hand before they even know they're playing the game in the first place.
I'm not sure if I agree with the premise that the gifted students keep all the resources to themselves. If anything they should require less mentoring, less discipling and their parents should be more likely to be involved financially and in PTA.
> and their parents should be more likely to be involved financially and in PTA.
And when gifted programs become screeners of affluence then there are going to be financially involved parents in the PTA which benefits the whole school. But if all of those parents end up at the "good" schools then those schools have considerably more funding (on top of the additional funding from the DOE) to allow them to actually educate their students. It is all a self reinforcing cycle that benefits a few and disadvantages many.
Now you are talking not only about a redistribution of taxed dollars but charitable time and donations from parents that want to give them to their children to less advantaged children.
Putting limits on how much a parent can help and support their child is a much more difficult ethical and political argument to make
The goal of a lot of the redistricting and ending of accelerated programs seems simple: put higher performing students in the same class as lower performing students. Then make the parents of the higher performing students responsible for everyone.
Having been in public school for most of my life I can say unequivocally: yes. It is not uncommon for teachers to purchase books and classroom supplies out of pocket since there simply is not enough funding.
Most estimates I've seen of funding for New York students is $25k to $30k a year though. I would think that's more of a sign of incredible corruption and mismanagement and not that there isn't enough money to go around.
To compare, Stuyvesant High School, the best in NYC, is $18k per student.
I would argue the point that Stuyvesant is the "best" but I don't disagree with your point. The problem is that a lot of the money ends up in the schools with the rich kids and for a lot a lot of students and schools they never see anywhere near that type of money.
Stuyvesant, like most good schools, raises a good deal of private funds. That actually accounts for good deal of the difference in resources between schools.
>Now lets look at the second assumption, that the gifted programs provide a higher level of education. This is not true. What happens is that gifted programs get significantly higher funding than other schools and so the gifted programs can afford to give a good well rounded education, which is a good thing!
You can't have it both ways. Is the education better or not?
Yeah I tripped on my words there a bit. My point is that the gifted programs have what is considered the necessities of a good well rounded education anywhere in the world. The fact that only the gifted programs have that is the flaw.
Then it's not enough to say it, show the numbers. Considering the tiny demographic it serves, I'd imagine the cuts on the basis of inequality are a convenient excuse to slash spending, and not increase it otherwise.
There's no relationship between gutting gifted programs and either alleviating inequality or improving outcomes of all other students. If you want to do the latter, that requires it's own intervention.
This basically apes the rhetoric of the right-wing on the part of social spending. "We can't afford it, it should be spent on other things". Same mentality.
There's absolutely nothing in there about the cost of those programs, which is why you didn't bother to quote it. What there is: talk about under-representation in those programs. That's it.
It's puzzling why you won't lend credence to an important factor: poverty has cognitive consequences. Yet rather than trying to improve the lot of those students, you're fixated on taking things away. This is how socialists think: some people have it too good and need to be punished.
Yeah, it's sad that there's no way to signal boost this. There's no way to convince people on this board to understand what is going on in New York. When you say "gifted program" people think that they are giving the smart kids opportunities that challenge them, but in New York it's not that at all. The screening process happens primarily before kids step into a classroom for the first time, and the divide between kids who get in and ones who don't is not innate intelligence, but rather preparation. The G&T program is the means by which the most motivated parents build a system within a system in which they can have good classes for their kids while neglecting the rest of the students, covered by a thin veneer of supposed meritocracy.
I was wondering why it seems to be such a big topic for the US. Where I’m from, gifted classes are for 1% of the kids and about socializing and keeping them engaged - their life outcomes are not statistically likely to be better than the “normal” children either way.
It provides them with an environment where they can develop at their own pace, and socialize with other children who think alike, which might not happen with only regular classes, where being gifted can be a disadvantage. I believe the programs are usually not full-time, but an addition to normal school hours.
This, to me, seems very different from being a better path to success as it apparently is in the US, in some kind of segregated system where millions of children are enrolled, up to 15% in some states.
Most studies I've seen also show that over the long term, gifted education does not result in better life outcomes, and does not eliminate differences in background (like being poor vs rich).
I guess the problem is how the gifted programs are being executed rather than their existence then.
When I read "gifted programs" I certainly would think that race or social background has zero influence on acceptance (even though they do influence kids access to education before getting there).
Reading what you said it seems logical that removing these programs is overall a good thing. But the way I see it the discussion about supporting kids that are truly gifted shouldn't be dismissed.
Maybe the solution would be to actually replace that program with something that's not perpetuating this segregation.
Disclaimer: I don't live in the US, so take it with a big grain of salt :)
> But the way I see it the discussion about supporting kids that are truly gifted shouldn't be dismissed
Sure! Yes! We are looking for a fair allocation of resources to actually give schools the ability to meet every student where they are and to engage them wherever that is. All teachers want to be able to meet kids where they are, wherever they are, but they don't have the resources to.
Did you consider Tiptap/Hocuspocus (also built atop ProseMirror/Y.js)? If yes, what were they lacking that lead you to roll your own? In any case, thanks for the writeup, it's timely to see someone work through this as I tinker with a collaborative editing project of my own.
I did consider tiptap/hocuspocus, but hocuspocus costs more than I can spend on a personal project right now. Additionally, the architecture of the app I am building makes heavy use of subdocuments, something that most of the yjs ecosystem doesn't support. I am likely going to end up using tiptap but swapping out the stable version of y-prosemirror it depends on with my fork that has what is needed to suport subdocuments. I really do love what the team at überdosis are doing though, I am really excited to see what kind of design choices hocuspocus makes behind the scenes, since my current server is kind of esoteric, and I'm sure they will have come up with a much better way to do it.
reply